• Ongoing coronavirus / COVID-19 discussion: how is the pandemic affecting your community, workplace, and wellness? 🦠

    Working from home? So are we. Come join us! Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing.

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Doohickie

Cyburbian
Messages
3,676
Points
46
One thing that is disappointing though is they are not calling for increased funding and resources for mental health services. Early indications say that the shooter was a very troubled individual.
"It's a mental health issue."

"Okay, then let's do mental health checks before someone is allowed to buy or possess a gun."


"Hell no! What if they decided I'm crazy???"
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
16,313
Points
59
I am still confused as to why we are so in love with guns. What do they provide that you can't get from food, friends, and dancing?

Do they like walks on the beach with a candlelight dinner? Probably not. They won't love you back.

I am supportive of concealed carry, handguns, and the concept that you need a gun for protection or in the case of many to hunt game. What I cannot understand is why anyone supports allowing guns with large capacities, quick triggers or semi-automatic guns.

"They will take your guns" is not an argument. Whomever "they" is, won't. "They" if we mean society, deserves to not have to worry about the mentally unstable owning guns, and deserves to be able to make a choice to live next to someone who has stockpiled weapons. Safety is in the eye of the beholder. Someone may feel safe with 300 guns in their home. Others may not feel safe with someone who lives next to them with 300 guns. A simple registration, 30 or 60 day wait period, and background check for each and every purchase that is put into a central database that is public would help a lot.
 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
14,039
Points
57
Sen. Ted Cruz spent a week outraged about Dr Seuss but shrugs off the murder of 10 innocent bystanders.

Sen. john Kennedy (R-La) twice on Tuesday made the comparison that background checks and other basic gun control measures are akin to handling drunk drivers by taking cars away from sober drivers. He brought up alcohol and automobiles and actually we have laws to address drunk driving. Drivers can lose their license. The thing about the cars vs. guns analogy is that we literally require passing a written test and a driving test by anyone getting behind the wheel of a car. I know that Kennedy didn't intent to make a case for the Universal Background Checks Act, but he did. So is he suggesting we should discuss licensing, registration, and insurance for guns? I think so.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,706
Points
56
"It's a mental health issue."

"Okay, then let's do mental health checks before someone is allowed to buy or possess a gun."

"Hell no! What if they decided I'm crazy???"

Absolutely we should. But I don't thing the decision should be up to some clerk at a gun store. A buddy of mine who works at a gun shop up north indicated that there apparently is already a way for health care provider's to put a red flag on the federal background check. He would like to see this happen and if there is the red flag, it would require the potential buyer to get clearance from a health care professional before the purchase can be completed.

The past rhetoric from the NRA has never held water for me when it came to background checks. I have gone through the background check multiple times knowing that I have a clean record. I know someone who tried and found out that there was an issue on his record that was an error and it took a week to correct, but there was a process to make that correction. (Identify theft issue)

But the premise of the issue is we want to ban a tool used to commit a horrific crime instead of focusing in on why the crime was committed in the first place and what could have been done to prevent it. Almost every guy will admit that sometimes if you don't have a hammer, the back of a wrench will work to sink a lifted nail. If he didn't have a gun, it is likely he would have found something else to cause harm.

And yet it still happens. Because the person can quickly get a gun.
You know what... you are right. Tell you what, let's also ban alcohol and cars to do away with drunk driving too. And knives... people get stabbed you know. Oh and fireworks! Fireworks kill people. And beef... it is bad for the environment. Computers, because people are using them for cyber crimes too... Rocks, we have to do away with rock collections since it was the first murder weapon!

Crimes don't happen because of guns... crimes happen because criminals are going to commit crimes. A gun is a tool. Tools should not be available to everyone. Someone who has a history of cyber crimes should not have access to a computer.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
16,313
Points
59
You know what... you are right. Tell you what, let's also ban alcohol and cars to do away with drunk driving too. And knives... people get stabbed you know. Oh and fireworks! Fireworks kill people. And beef... it is bad for the environment. Computers, because people are using them for cyber crimes too... Rocks, we have to do away with rock collections since it was the first murder weapon!

Crimes don't happen because of guns... crimes happen because criminals are going to commit crimes. A gun is a tool. Tools should not be available to everyone. Someone who has a history of cyber crimes should not have access to a computer.
Sigh. Tried and true. Can you cut a steak with a gun? What about take your kid to school with a gun? I know I can't eat a gun, very metally.

The value of the gun is incredibly limited. Why do we continue to make these strawman arguments? We shouldn't take away cars from people... wait for it, unless they get arrested for drunk driving. You know how I know if someone got arrested for drunk driving? There is a public system I can look at. They are registered, etc.

Crimes will happen, for sure. Knife crimes would not kill 10 people within minutes. Drunk driving rarely kills 10 people in minutes (although I am not going to say it is "better" or doesn't ever happen). The point you are making is that the potential savings of life is not worth the reduction in your ability to do whatever you want to do. I would imagine you would say the reduction in your LIBERTY! The truth is though, there would be no reduction in liberty. But yes, you would not be allow to just do whatever you want. There would be regulations and protections, for the millions of people who do not agree with you on guns not making crimes worse.

Can you at least admit that if the mass killer in Boulder had a knife instead of a gun, he would have likely killed less people? Or is the ability to shoot 10 shots at a deer quickly, once a year, worth the risk that he could use it on people?
 

Bubba

Cyburbian
Messages
5,767
Points
45
And yet it still happens. Because the person can quickly get a gun.
Eh, wasn't dipping down into the gun control argument, just pointing out that killin' folks is still illegal in Georgia - the talking head's statement that JNA quoted is erroneous.
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
15,481
Points
53
Off the gun topic, some Fox commentator mentions lower class of people. I think they were trying to say we're creating a way for cartels to exploit the poor or something like that, but it just didn't come out that way.
 

Suburb Repairman

moderator in moderation
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
7,441
Points
35
And here we go again...


Just the mention of it has caused my local ammo provider to sell out of some calibers in a matter of hours.
Figured you might think this is funny... a friend of mine (more liberal than me) has a side hustle in which he buys as much ammo as he can when prices are low, and then sells at 3X to 4X the cost when gun nuts predictably freak out when a Democrat gets elected and sporting goods stores run out. He doesn't even own a gun. He views it simply as "a fool and his money are soon parted."
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,706
Points
56
Sigh. Tried and true. Can you cut a steak with a gun? What about take your kid to school with a gun? I know I can't eat a gun, very metally.

The value of the gun is incredibly limited. Why do we continue to make these strawman arguments? We shouldn't take away cars from people... wait for it, unless they get arrested for drunk driving. You know how I know if someone got arrested for drunk driving? There is a public system I can look at. They are registered, etc.

Crimes will happen, for sure. Knife crimes would not kill 10 people within minutes. Drunk driving rarely kills 10 people in minutes (although I am not going to say it is "better" or doesn't ever happen). The point you are making is that the potential savings of life is not worth the reduction in your ability to do whatever you want to do. I would imagine you would say the reduction in your LIBERTY! The truth is though, there would be no reduction in liberty. But yes, you would not be allow to just do whatever you want. There would be regulations and protections, for the millions of people who do not agree with you on guns not making crimes worse.

Can you at least admit that if the mass killer in Boulder had a knife instead of a gun, he would have likely killed less people? Or is the ability to shoot 10 shots at a deer quickly, once a year, worth the risk that he could use it on people?
Sigh? what is this 7th grade?

No, I can't cut a steak with a gun... but I can shoot the deer that provides that steak with one. Not all guns are about hunting either. As for being incredibly limited, sure... but most things are, but murder is not one. As for cars, give me a break. There are examples that this tool can be just as deadly and take less time to commit the the same or greater damage.

Do you believe that the tool makes one commit the crime? Given that, it a freaking miracle that I haven't committed a crime. More so, there are estimates that Americans own 8 million AR-15 rifles out of the total number of 300 million guns. Even more so, when you look at the data associated with murders, all rifles are only a small fraction of the total weapons used. AR-15 are even a small fraction of that group. You ask if he would have killed less people with a knife, maybe, but a mass stabbing in Japan killed 19. More so, there are murders committed by knives than by all rifles.

So no. Your emotional argument is not back by facts. It is backed by fear of what you don't understand.

My question to you is why don't you think we should focus on mental health issues?

Hey I get it. What happened is horrific and we are all looking for solutions on how to fix the problem. But we need to focus on what the real problem is. Why did this person do what he did. It wasn't because he had access to a gun. (Which we can all agree that he should not have had access to)

Figured you might think this is funny... a friend of mine (more liberal than me) has a side hustle in which he buys as much ammo as he can when prices are low, and then sells at 3X to 4X the cost when gun nuts predictably freak out when a Democrat gets elected and sporting goods stores run out. He doesn't even own a gun. He views it simply as "a fool and his money are soon parted."

That is why I buy in bulk when it is cheap.
 
Last edited:

mendelman

Unfrozen Caveman Planner
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,230
Points
59
Figured you might think this is funny... a friend of mine (more liberal than me) has a side hustle in which he buys as much ammo as he can when prices are low, and then sells at 3X to 4X the cost when gun nuts predictably freak out when a Democrat gets elected and sporting goods stores run out. He doesn't even own a gun. He views it simply as "a fool and his money are soon parted."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 

Doohickie

Cyburbian
Messages
3,676
Points
46
Almost every guy will admit that sometimes if you don't have a hammer, the back of a wrench will work to sink a lifted nail. If he didn't have a gun, it is likely he would have found something else to cause harm.
Your statement is BS.
164501143_284357993057557_3462350354497036233_o.jpg

The same day as Sandy Hook, there was an attack at an elementary school in China. A similar number of children were injured. NONE were killed, owing to the fact that the attacker couldn't get a gun so he used a knife. Yes, children were injured but THEY LIVED.

The problem with your assertion is that other, non-firearm methods of attack are far less efficient at causing injury and therefore attacks made with other weapons are far less lethal.

Other countries have figured it out. They've greatly reduced mass shootings. No, not totally eliminated, but just because you don't have an absolute fix doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,706
Points
56
Your statement is BS.
164501143_284357993057557_3462350354497036233_o.jpg

The same day as Sandy Hook, there was an attack at an elementary school in China. A similar number of children were injured. NONE were killed, owing to the fact that the attacker couldn't get a gun so he used a knife. Yes, children were injured but THEY LIVED.

The problem with your assertion is that other, non-firearm methods of attack are far less efficient at causing injury and therefore attacks made with other weapons are far less lethal.

Other countries have figured it out. They've greatly reduced mass shootings. No, not totally eliminated, but just because you don't have an absolute fix doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
Why is it BS... because I provide links to facts regarding murders and the weapons used? Or is it because every one of these mass murders that you posted were committed by a person with an evil intent or a mental issue? Or maybe because it is the political "Feel Good" answer instead of actually doing something about the real problem.

You posted about 12 guns that were used to commit horrible crimes... what about the rest of the 8 million out there?
 

Doohickie

Cyburbian
Messages
3,676
Points
46
Did you read the whole post?

At this point I'd be fully in favor of confiscating all guns. I don't care anymore about men with inadequacies trying to compensate. Get over it.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,706
Points
56
Did you read the whole post?

At this point I'd be fully in favor of confiscating all guns. I don't care anymore about men with inadequacies trying to compensate. Get over it.
Yes... and why did the person in China want to cause harm? What if he used a bat, or a car, or box cutters to hijack a plane and fly it into the building. All have been used in the past.

If you want to confiscate all guns, let me know how well that works for you. Furthermore, it is not about inadequacies, it is about common sense and using logic over "feelings", so I don't think that I am the one who needs to get over anything.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
16,313
Points
59
Sigh? what is this 7th grade?

No, I can't cut a steak with a gun... but I can shoot the deer that provides that steak with one. Not all guns are about hunting either. As for being incredibly limited, sure... but most things are, but murder is not one. As for cars, give me a break. There are examples that this tool can be just as deadly and take less time to commit the the same or greater damage.

Do you believe that the tool makes one commit the crime? Given that, it a freaking miracle that I haven't committed a crime. More so, there are estimates that Americans own 8 million AR-15 rifles out of the total number of 300 million guns. Even more so, when you look at the data associated with murders, all rifles are only a small fraction of the total weapons used. AR-15 are even a small fraction of that group. You ask if he would have killed less people with a knife, maybe, but a mass stabbing in Japan killed 19. More so, there are murders committed by knives than by all rifles.

So no. Your emotional argument is not back by facts. It is backed by fear of what you don't understand.

My question to you is why don't you think we should focus on mental health issues?

Hey I get it. What happened is horrific and we are all looking for solutions on how to fix the problem. But we need to focus on what the real problem is. Why did this person do what he did. It wasn't because he had access to a gun. (Which we can all agree that he should not have had access to)



That is why I buy in bulk when it is cheap.
So one stabbing of 19, huh? Hmm, totally seems like it happens enough to warrant a comparison to the gun violence that occurs daily in the US. With your chart you just ignore the "Firearms, type not stated" just go right for Rifles! It is my guess that some of those not stated guns were rifles. And knives include cutting instruments, so it also probably includes non-knife things, like pizza cutters so....

You work so hard to make an argument about why a specific gun isn't so bad. But the other side of that argument is that there is no reason they need to be owned. By your own admission they serve no real purpose beyond pleasure. My "emotional" argument is backed by the same facts you seem to use to support the idea that you want something!

I am not arguing against mental health solutions. Our country has underfunded our mental health hospitals and healthcare options for years. It is hard to get insurance companies to pay for mental health visits. There are a lot of issues with that, but the people who are AGAINST gun control, are certainly not arguing for universal healthcare or other ways to help support those who are in need, so this isn't a very solid argument, unless you are saying you individually, whom are different from the group, think that, and then that is fine, but it certainly isn't fact or data beyond your own personal opinion, which is fine.

The problem is that guns allow for poor decisions to be made quicker. We have banned mines. We have banned hand grenades? I mean why? I just like to go hunting with my buddies and throw a grenade at a deer so I can get steak!! Guns, generally, provide little to no value to the general public. We have a sick obsession with them, and for whatever reason continue to find "facts" that support the need for them beyond self defense and hunting. I get hand guns. I get shotguns. I get some rifles. Pleasure shooting would be fine as well, as long as we require a ton of loops to jump through that assure that individual should own a "tool" that has no unique value beyond taking life. I think this is where your argument folds. Why shouldn't we have a registration and insurance requirements for guns?
 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
29,608
Points
73
I can't understand why there's even debate on this essential right. The reason why congress should not pass any laws restricting gun ownership is spelled out explicitly in the Constitution - it's so we can maintain militias! What is so hard to understand about that? That's why so many many of us patriots report once a month to the village green so that we can perform line drills with our muskets under the watchful eye of the Company commander (and what a dashing figure he cuts perched gallantly upon his stallion with sabre drawn). Sure, some of the poorer members lack the funds necessary to purchase those newfangled socketed bayonets and the grenadiers never seem to have the necessary supplies Continental Congress continually promises, but it is through such patriotic fervor that our lands are kept free from foreign kings and potentates.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,706
Points
56
So one stabbing of 19, huh? Hmm, totally seems like it happens enough to warrant a comparison to the gun violence that occurs daily in the US. With your chart you just ignore the "Firearms, type not stated" just go right for Rifles! It is my guess that some of those not stated guns were rifles. And knives include cutting instruments, so it also probably includes non-knife things, like pizza cutters so....

You work so hard to make an argument about why a specific gun isn't so bad. But the other side of that argument is that there is no reason they need to be owned. By your own admission they serve no real purpose beyond pleasure. My "emotional" argument is backed by the same facts you seem to use to support the idea that you want something!

I am not arguing against mental health solutions. Our country has underfunded our mental health hospitals and healthcare options for years. It is hard to get insurance companies to pay for mental health visits. There are a lot of issues with that, but the people who are AGAINST gun control, are certainly not arguing for universal healthcare or other ways to help support those who are in need, so this isn't a very solid argument, unless you are saying you individually, whom are different from the group, think that, and then that is fine, but it certainly isn't fact or data beyond your own personal opinion, which is fine.

The problem is that guns allow for poor decisions to be made quicker. We have banned mines. We have banned hand grenades? I mean why? I just like to go hunting with my buddies and throw a grenade at a deer so I can get steak!! Guns, generally, provide little to no value to the general public. We have a sick obsession with them, and for whatever reason continue to find "facts" that support the need for them beyond self defense and hunting. I get hand guns. I get shotguns. I get some rifles. Pleasure shooting would be fine as well, as long as we require a ton of loops to jump through that assure that individual should own a "tool" that has no unique value beyond taking life. I think this is where your argument folds. Why shouldn't we have a registration and insurance requirements for guns?
You don't read my post do you. Therefore let me break this down for you...

I am not opposed to reasonable gun control. In fact, (as I have said multiple times), I support universal background checks and think they should include a flag that suspends the sale if there is concern made by a mental health care provider. I feel that this should be done for the sale of all guns. I do not support the banning people who are going to use guns for legal purposes from obtaining them.

My question to you is what is the difference between this gun and this gun. Which one is an 'assault rifle and why? They both have the same type of operation and they both shoot the exact same round? Is is one of these less than the 30.06 hunting rifle which has a lager casing but the same size projectile and not much difference in distance? It too is a semiautomatic. Or is that 'worse' because it travels further. Should all of these be banned? My point is the descriptions that they give are founded in fear over logic which is the dumbest thing the government could do.

Finally, I am in favor of increased funding for mental health services over universal health care because the federal government has a super lousy track record of running things like health care.


I can't understand why there's even debate on this essential right. The reason why congress should not pass any laws restricting gun ownership is spelled out explicitly in the Constitution - it's so we can maintain militias! What is so hard to understand about that? That's why so many many of us patriots report once a month to the village green so that we can perform line drills with our muskets under the watchful eye of the Company commander (and what a dashing figure he cuts perched gallantly upon his stallion with sabre drawn). Sure, some of the poorer members lack the funds necessary to purchase those newfangled socketed bayonets and the grenadiers never seem to have the necessary supplies Continental Congress continually promises, but it is through such patriotic fervor that our lands are kept free from foreign kings and potentates.
It is so hard to understand because your interpretation of their intent is wrong.

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
 

MD Planner

Cyburbian
Messages
2,932
Points
47
I have no issue with people owning guns and am also not supposed to some serious limits on that. I always chuckle when I hear "the founders' intent" about whatever. You and I have no idea what their intent was. We THINK we do and some is fairly obvious. But we hold these guys up like they were soothsayers. Our world has evolved in ways they could not possibly have imagined.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
16,313
Points
59
I think we will never see eye to eye on this topic, because I do not idolize the founders, nor a constitution that had no way to understand today's world of guns or weaponry. The idea that they could have understood that catastrophic destruction that these weapons have had on our world would not have made them idolize these weapons. They viewed everything through protection from government overreach, not protection based on the ownership of weapons. Those weapons (which they assumed would be equal to that of which the government could put together), would defend them against the new war. None of those understandings touch on the world we have today, our government's ability to erase a house without leaving Quantico, and social media and the news media making government more transparent where they can't just "take over".



"The experience of my brethren in the wars that have been fought is that my ability to keep guns in case the government attempts to tyrannize us, is greater than that of which life is valued. My need to have a weapon to defend against government bombs and sharks with lasers on their heads, shall not be diminished by that which is important to me, which is the "right" for me to have all types of guns without consideration or question".
-A founder, probably. Februaryish 29, 1789.
 

JNA

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
26,495
Points
70
Somebody explain why

A constitutional right shouldn't/can't be regulated - 2nd
but the right to vote has changed over time; some times not for the better (current efforts)

Then
there is the "privilege" - driving a car is regulated - to get a license you have take a class. a written test, driving test & also have proof of insurance & registration. There are separate licenses required for trucks & motorcycles.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,706
Points
56
I think we will never see eye to eye on this topic, because I do not idolize the founders, nor a constitution that had no way to understand today's world of guns or weaponry. The idea that they could have understood that catastrophic destruction that these weapons have had on our world would not have made them idolize these weapons. They viewed everything through protection from government overreach, not protection based on the ownership of weapons. Those weapons (which they assumed would be equal to that of which the government could put together), would defend them against the new war. None of those understandings touch on the world we have today, our government's ability to erase a house without leaving Quantico, and social media and the news media making government more transparent where they can't just "take over".



"The experience of my brethren in the wars that have been fought is that my ability to keep guns in case the government attempts to tyrannize us, is greater than that of which life is valued. My need to have a weapon to defend against government bombs and sharks with lasers on their heads, shall not be diminished by that which is important to me, which is the "right" for me to have all types of guns without consideration or question".
-A founder, probably. Februaryish 29, 1789.
You are correct that we will never see eye to eye on it... but it isn't because of the founders. Yes, I am a huge fan of the multiple pages of parchment in the national archives and the structures and details that the founders prepared for us. But I think we won't see eye to eye on this because you have a belief that we should eliminate the weapon used instead of finding ways to prevent the crime from being committed in the first place. We can ban all the weapons we want, but there will always be tools used to cause harm. In the end we want the same thing. We want people to be safe. We just have very different fundamental beliefs on how to achieve that goal.

Somebody explain why

A constitutional right shouldn't/can't be regulated - 2nd
but the right to vote has changed over time; some times not for the better (current efforts)

Then
there is the "privilege" - driving a car is regulated - to get a license you have take a class. a written test, driving test & also have proof of insurance & registration. There are separate licenses required for trucks & motorcycles.
The voting changes resulted from a range of elements including constitutional amendments.

However, guns are heavily regulated and differ from state to state. The weapon used in CO is illegal in CA and NY. I have never been able to purchase a weapon without having to show and in many cases I have had to go through background checks. In some states, you have to show ID to buy some types of ammo too. In most states you do need a license if you are going to conceal carry a weapon and with some weapons, you need a permit to purchase it (Handguns are a common example).
 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
14,039
Points
57
I think some of the quotes are on target:

used a Ruger AR-556 pistol -- what one expert called "a semiautomatic made for combat" that is easy to carry and has "the firepower of a long gun."

The Ruger AR-556 is a type of AR-15, the military-style rifle that has been used in many other mass shootings.

"The AR-15 platform weapon -- whether it's in a long gun or pistol -- essentially has the same firepower. It's a semiautomatic made for combat," said Timothy D. Lytton, a gun industry expert at Georgia State University.

These guns were restricted by federal law for 10 years, until the so-called assault weapons ban expired in 2004. That ban restricted certain components of the gun, like the pistol grips and bayonet lugs, and limited magazine capacity to 10.

The versatility of the AR-15, including flash suppressors, pistol grips and even bayonets -- makes it popular among gun enthusiasts.

As for the mental illness argument:
 

HomerJ

Cyburbian
Messages
1,141
Points
18
You are correct that we will never see eye to eye on it... but it isn't because of the founders. Yes, I am a huge fan of the multiple pages of parchment in the national archives and the structures and details that the founders prepared for us. But I think we won't see eye to eye on this because you have a belief that we should eliminate the weapon used instead of finding ways to prevent the crime from being committed in the first place. We can ban all the weapons we want, but there will always be tools used to cause harm. In the end we want the same thing. We want people to be safe. We just have very different fundamental beliefs on how to achieve that goal.


The voting changes resulted from a range of elements including constitutional amendments.

However, guns are heavily regulated and differ from state to state. The weapon used in CO is illegal in CA and NY. I have never been able to purchase a weapon without having to show and in many cases I have had to go through background checks. In some states, you have to show ID to buy some types of ammo too. In most states you do need a license if you are going to conceal carry a weapon and with some weapons, you need a permit to purchase it (Handguns are a common example).

I probably shouldn't add any more fuel to the fire here, but hey what the heck...

I will go on the record stating that I (respectfully) do think, in the particular case of gun violence and mass shootings, we actually should focus on eliminating the weapons instead of seeking ways to prevent the crime from being committed in the first place. It's not that I think the latter is a bad idea, I just don't think it's an approach that will work.

Wanting people to be safe is a good goal, but if I was being specific to this situation I would want the goal to be a reduction of the total number of victims of gun violence. I get that there would be some significant costs and trade-offs to achieving that goal as well as examples of people undermining new regulations and programs, but I don't believe there is any realistic way to achieve this without lowering the total number of guns per person, particularly automatic weapons and assault rifles.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,706
Points
56
The U.S. has 4.4% of the world's population but 42% of the world's weapons (handguns, rifles and the like). As I have said previously, we have an absurd fetish with guns in this country. Until that is solved, innocent people will be routinely gunned down.
Why do you think that is?

More so, do you think more reasonable approaches to gun control than banning one type will result in less violence?
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
16,313
Points
59
Why do you think that is?

More so, do you think more reasonable approaches to gun control than banning one type will result in less violence?
My opinion is that we have an obsession with guns that is unhealthy.

Also, I think many people would ban more than just one type of gun, but many also realize that we have to start somewhere, and hope that even that little bit will help a problem that just continually goes unchecked because a portion (a minority that happens to have gerrymandered power in many states) won't let anything change.

The reductions in guns would objectively by anyone's standard lower violence. I am not sure even the more ardent gun supporters would say that they don't agree there would be less violence if we ban guns. They just don't want any gun regulations because of liberty, framers, or some other weak arguments about the history of this country, etc.
 

JNA

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
26,495
Points
70
The new Georgia law of making it a crime to deliver/give food or drink to those waiting in line to vote

made me think of the scene in Blazing Saddles

Hedley Lamarr: Qualifications?
Gum Chewer: [chewing gum] Arson... armed robbery... mayhem...
Hedley Lamarr: Wait a moment. What have you got in your mouth?
Gum Chewer: [stops chewing] Nuff'm.
Hedley Lamarr: "Nuff'm", eh? Lyle!
Lyle: [searches the man's mouth] Gum!
Hedley Lamarr: Chewing gum on line, eh? I hope you brought enough for everybody.
Gum Chewer: [panicked] I didn't know there was going to be so many!
[Hedley shoots the gum chewer]
Jim: [hidden behind a rock] Boy, is he strict!
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,706
Points
56
My opinion is that we have an obsession with guns that is unhealthy.

Also, I think many people would ban more than just one type of gun, but many also realize that we have to start somewhere, and hope that even that little bit will help a problem that just continually goes unchecked because a portion (a minority that happens to have gerrymandered power in many states) won't let anything change.

The reductions in guns would objectively by anyone's standard lower violence. I am not sure even the more ardent gun supporters would say that they don't agree there would be less violence if we ban guns. They just don't want any gun regulations because of liberty, framers, or some other weak arguments about the history of this country, etc.

Not sure I agree with that statement. It would lower GUN violence. But violence overall? Eh, perhaps not. We are a pretty violent people.
Fair. I meant gun violence.

I think this is an interesting conversation to have. I would also agree that there are different obsessions with guns in America that I don't really know how to explain.

For example, I have a buddy who is former military, a gun collector, and is an avid marksman that competes in tournaments and is a hunter. I know without a doubt that he has at least 20 guns that I know of, but I also know what they are all different in some aspect from the others. Some are bolt action long range, some are semiautomatic sporting rifles (like an AR-15), some are semiautomatic shot guns, some are over 100 years old, and some are military issue. He has hand guns, musket loaders, shot guns, and all sorts of stuff in between. He also stores them in a safes or lockbox depending on size and intent, understands how to use them, and has thought his kids the proper way to handle them and how to respect them. For 'his guns' . He has also gone through the necessary training and permitting to obtain some that are not legal for many people to own, such as fully automatic guns. Is this unhealthy?

My grandfather is an avid hunter and owns several different guns. This includes semiautomatic rifles (wood stock with scope for large game) and shot guns. But he has no hand guns. All are properly secured in a custom built gun cabinet. Is this unhealthy?

My neighbor is a retired cop, but not a hunter. He too owns several weapons, some are semiautomatic and a few handguns. All are property secured. Is this unhealthy?

Would you propose taking any of the weapons away from these people? Do these people have obsessions with weapons.

Now let's talk about the guy who wants to be tough and wants to drive around "With the pistol on my hip like I'm a cop."
Let's talk about the 17 year old kid who is being bullied in class.
Let's talk about the person who is in fear that he is being followed and some how buys a gun to get his revenge.
Let's talk about the extremist who looks down on some members of society.
Let's talk about the social outcast.
Let's talk about the kid in the inner city streets who's only male role model is a gang member.

I agree 100% that there are people in our society who should not have guns. My question is how do you keep guns out of their hands?
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
16,313
Points
59
For example, I have a buddy who is former military, a gun collector, and is an avid marksman that competes in tournaments and is a hunter. I know without a doubt that he has at least 20 guns that I know of, but I also know what they are all different in some aspect from the others. Some are bolt action long range, some are semiautomatic sporting rifles (like an AR-15), some are semiautomatic shot guns, some are over 100 years old, and some are military issue. He has hand guns, musket loaders, shot guns, and all sorts of stuff in between. He also stores them in a safes or lockbox depending on size and intent, understands how to use them, and has thought his kids the proper way to handle them and how to respect them. For 'his guns' . He has also gone through the necessary training and permitting to obtain some that are not legal for many people to own, such as fully automatic guns. Is this unhealthy?

My grandfather is an avid hunter and owns several different guns. This includes semiautomatic rifles (wood stock with scope for large game) and shot guns. But he has no hand guns. All are properly secured in a custom built gun cabinet. Is this unhealthy?

My neighbor is a retired cop, but not a hunter. He too owns several weapons, some are semiautomatic and a few handguns. All are property secured. Is this unhealthy?

Would you propose taking any of the weapons away from these people? Do these people have obsessions with weapons.

Yes, it isn't about the person who bought the gun, or those whom properly secure them. It is about the kid who "accidently" used it. The son who made a poor choice and took his dads hunting rifle. The friend to knows his buddy has lots of guns who decides to steal one.

The point isn't that in your examples the gun collector or grandfather or neighbor are bad people. The point isn't about the people. The point is about the ability those guns create to have a catastrophic death event that is not created equally by any other legal weapon (unless you have seen a knife shooter 3000).

Many try and make this about people. It is the person who makes the mistake or is evil, not the weapon! But in the end if the weapon was a stick when that terrible person made that terrible choice, less people would die. My point is that yes, we should take away those guns because the fewer guns in private hands means the fewer lives are potentially lost to gun violence.

It may surprise you, but I enjoy shooting cans with a bb gun or clay pigeons with a shotgun. I have many in my family who have concealed carry, and handguns. I am not against the example families who do this or that. I believe that we as a society have to do more to reduce the potential for terrible events. Mental health is a part of that solution, but so it the removal of the tool (or limitation) that creates the catastrophic event.
 

HomerJ

Cyburbian
Messages
1,141
Points
18
Would you propose taking any of the weapons away from these people?

I don't want the government to take anyone's guns away, but I would argue there is probably no other way to realistically reduce gun violence. I would support seeing my own tax dollars used to compensate takings.

I say that with no judgement whatsoever towards the people you reference. I'm sure they are all responsible gun owners.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,706
Points
56
Yes, it isn't about the person who bought the gun, or those whom properly secure them. It is about the kid who "accidently" used it. The son who made a poor choice and took his dads hunting rifle. The friend to knows his buddy has lots of guns who decides to steal one.

The point isn't that in your examples the gun collector or grandfather or neighbor are bad people. The point isn't about the people. The point is about the ability those guns create to have a catastrophic death event that is not created equally by any other legal weapon (unless you have seen a knife shooter 3000).

Many try and make this about people. It is the person who makes the mistake or is evil, not the weapon! But in the end if the weapon was a stick when that terrible person made that terrible choice, less people would die. My point is that yes, we should take away those guns because the fewer guns in private hands means the fewer lives are potentially lost to gun violence.

It may surprise you, but I enjoy shooting cans with a bb gun or clay pigeons with a shotgun. I have many in my family who have concealed carry, and handguns. I am not against the example families who do this or that. I believe that we as a society have to do more to reduce the potential for terrible events. Mental health is a part of that solution, but so it the removal of the tool (or limitation) that creates the catastrophic event.
Knife Shooter 3000? Cool! Is it the one with the scope, and the compass in the stock?

I think you are spot on about access to those weapons and that is a big issue that I have as well. I am sure that those in your family that have weapons make sure that access to them is limited to authorized users only. As an example, neither my wife nor kids can get to mine unless they have some hidden safe cracking skills that I know about.

But unfortunately, I too know people who are careless with the storage of their weapons and I call them out for it. I think I mentioned it in here but a guy down the street did not secure a pistol that he had and his kids brought it out to show the other neighborhood kids. When I found out I was on his door step ripping into him for it. I would have called the police and child protective services, but someone beat me to the punch on that one. Not everyone should own a gun... any gun. Pure and simple as that.

I don't want the government to take anyone's guns away, but I would argue there is probably no other way to realistically reduce gun violence. I would support seeing my own tax dollars used to compensate takings.

I say that with no judgement whatsoever towards the people you reference. I'm sure they are all responsible gun owners.
I am sorry, but if it is on a wholesale approach, I am going to disagree. I think there are parameters where someone's gun should be taken away, but for law abiding citizens who have passed a background check and treat them with respect, then I don't think the Government should, or has the constitutional authority, to do so.
 

Super Amputee Cat

Cyburbian
Messages
2,446
Points
34
Kemp is now back at the top of my $hit list :(

Top 5 Human Excrement Governors

1. Kemp (GA)
2. Noem (SD)
3. DeSantis (FL)
4. Abbott (TX)
5. Reynolds (IA)
 

Bubba

Cyburbian
Messages
5,767
Points
45
Kemp is now back at the top of my $hit list :(
Relax, Skippy, I've been warning you for years that the hate's gonna eat you up. :cool:

If you ignore the hysterics from the left for a couple of seconds and concentrate on what was actually passed on elections in Georgia, there are some things you should take into account:

  • Kemp and the Speaker of the House (who despise each other) worked together to water down the bill down to something that's a far cry from what the Trump loyalists wanted;
  • The changes that are viewed as voting "restrictions" are benign;
  • Removing state-level election oversight from the SoS and giving the legislature the ability to remove local voting officials will end up biting the GOP in the rear in a few years. I'm actually surprised that Stacey Abrams wasn't around rallying the Dem troops to vote for the bill considering the power it will give her when she sweeps into office in a couple of years.

Do you still have a relative or two living in Georgia? I vaguely remember you having some kin in Athens...otherwise I can't see why you would waste any energy caring about something that can't affect you in any way.
 
Last edited:

Veloise

Cyburbian
Messages
6,018
Points
36
A friend wrote this. He's a middle school band director and sometime professional musician, so he knows how to count.


I’ve been having some discussions about voter fraud and while they have definitely reinforced the idea that no one’s mind is ever changed by an argument online, I did actually read sources provided in favor of increased voting restrictions and thought I’d share some research and math I’ve done tonight based on data presented by those claiming there is massive voter fraud in the US.
I’ll take my numbers from a source that no one arguing for more restrictive voting could claim is too “lefty”. The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank that keeps records of voter fraud. Some of their data points are from the last year, so it is up to date.
The Heritage foundation lists a total of 1,317 “proven instances of voter fraud”. It is interesting that they don’t provide any easy to find context for that number. Let me know if I’m missing a larger context that they present somewhere. I’ve been looking for a good chunk of time. Is it this year? This decade? That information is conspicuously absent from the numbers on their page. But over a thousand! That’s a lot! Right?
There were 153.9 million votes this year. Even if all 1,317 “proven instances of voter fraud” happened this year in the 2020 election, that is a rate of only 0.000861%. I’m being generous on the math there. I rounded down to 153 million so I’m spotting that position 900,000 votes. So in the most generous situation for an argument touting the existence of voter fraud there were less than one thousandth of one percent of votes involving some sort of fraud.
Now were those 1,317 instances all this year? No.
While they make the time frame hard to find (again, please point it out to me if I’m missing it) you can search by year. The scrolling bar goes back to 1979.
How many votes have been cast in that time? Let’s take just presidential elections. Of course the heritage foundation includes non-presidential elections in those numbers, but again I’ll be generous to the counter argument. Adding up the ballots cast in presidential years only, and only adding the numbers in the millions (again I’m being generous with the math) you get 1,709,000,000 votes since 1980. (The Wikipedia article on presidential elections includes a table of total number of votes cast. The actual number is higher but I wanted quick addition and I always rounded down - generous for the voter restriction side)
1317 divided by 1.7 billion is 0.00000077. Less than one out of a million over fourty years. (I rounded in favor of voting restrictions yet again - I’m spotting the vote restriction view 9 million votes this time)
That’s 7.7x10-7 for our scientific notation friends.
All this is not even counting non-presidential elections. That would put the number of votes over a fourty year period well over 2 billion. Literally billions of votes since 1979 and 1,317 is the best they can come up with?
Now are all of these 1317 instances someone actually attempting to cast a vote? No. When you look at the types of crimes they include in this list it has many instances of ballot petition fraud. Now that is definitely a crime, but is it voter fraud that could possibly be corrected with photo ID or other increased voter restrictions? No. If you actually look at the descriptions of the crimes committed, many of them are not crimes committed in the process of voting. The ones that are are proof that we don’t need further restrictions on voting because the system already catches the extremely rare instances of actual crimes committed with actual votes.
It is true to say that voter fraud is such a small problem as to be nearly nonexistent. Two borrow a couple of phrases from the world of science and math: “Vanishingly small. Approaching zero.” It is wrong when it happens. Should we make it harder to vote because of a problem that is literally less than one in a million? No.
Math!
 

Doohickie

Cyburbian
Messages
3,676
Points
46
Is this unhealthy?
Taken all together, Americans own 46% of the privately held guns, while comprising only 4.25% of the world's population. Is this unhealthy?

YES.

You can try to defend it all you want but there are way too many guns in the U.S.
 
Last edited:

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,706
Points
56
Taken all together, Americans own 46% of the privately held guns, while comprising only 4.25% of the world's population. Is this unhealthy?

YES.

You can try to defend it all you want but there are way too many guns in the U.S.
I am sorry you feel that way. Let me know how your crusade to confiscate everyone's guns works out for you. May I suggest you start in Chicago and Baltimore. They already have super strict gun laws so I am sure that the liberal mayors in both situations will have a super easy time and people will be more than willing to turn their weapons in.
 

Super Amputee Cat

Cyburbian
Messages
2,446
Points
34
I think she should be at least 3rd in that list...
Actually it was a toss up between her and that moron in North Dakota. "Covid Kim" indeed. I couldn't find a good moniker for North Dakota's.

As for being third, it's hard to get that high with monsters like Kemp and Noem. Actually Noem is the worst of them all but since SD is such a small state, she has murdered fewer people. That's why DeSantis and Abbott are so high. They have the blood of 10s of thousands on their hands, but Per capita, Noem is the biggest killer of them all.

I'd have to weigh Iowa's population against Covid deaths but I just can't see her cracking the Top 3.
 
Last edited:

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
16,313
Points
59
I mean Kemp sucks pretty badly. Objectively. Maybe not a monster, but in the grand scheme of governors he isn't leading.

I will say though at least Kemp had an ounce of courage for a bit, so he does get those points. Otherwise, he is not led at all through COVID, even if he isn't the worst like Abbott or Noem.

I think it will be interesting how badly Kemp is crushed in the Primary by far right Georgians, who don't believe in sharing water :roflmao:

Than the Collins v. Abrams 2022 race will be interesting to see if Georgia truly is purple or if it was just an anti-Trump bump (which is my guess).
 

Bubba

Cyburbian
Messages
5,767
Points
45
I think it will be interesting how badly Kemp is crushed in the Primary by far right Georgians, who don't believe in sharing water :roflmao:

Than the Collins v. Abrams 2022 race will be interesting to see if Georgia truly is purple or if it was just an anti-Trump bump (which is my guess).
The no water/food distribution for voting lines is beyond dumb, but keeping it in the bill was a compromise to get rid of other measures from the remaining Trump loyalists that were actual voter suppression measures. Still, it's stupid, but also easily circumventable. Overall, though, voting in 2024 will be more accessible than in 2018 - details, details...

I'll be mildly surprised if Collins tries to primary Kemp. And, the one 2020 down-ballot statewide race that went to a runoff was not impacted by amti-Trump sentiment and went to the GOP incumbent. Where it gets interesting is if the 2024 election does end up as Kemp - Abrams II (Electric Boogaloo). Abrams probably wins, and both houses of the state legislature will stay with the GOP...
 

TOFB

Cyburbian
Messages
2,906
Points
38
Actually it was a toss up between her and that moron in North Dakota. "Covid Kim" indeed. I couldn't find a good moniker for North Dakota's.

As for being third, it's hard to get that high with monsters like Kemp and Noem. Actually Noem is the worst of them all but since SD is such a small state, she has murdered fewer people. That's why DeSantis and Abbott are so high. They have the blood of 10s of thousands on their hands, but Per capita, Noem is the biggest killer of them all.

I'd have to weigh Iowa's population against Covid deaths but I just can't see her cracking the Top 3.
Looks like Iowa is currently 15th in mortality
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
16,313
Points
59
What?! Matt Gaetz is a terrible human? I would have never guessed it...

So this Infrastructure Bill is going to be interesting. I like the public transit funding concept, but hopefully it will require that we look at future solutions, not just funding the old broke solutions. And there are big numbers with vague details. I am very interested to see those details, because what could be a good bill, is looking more and more like an attempt to push social policy along with investment in infrastructure... which is going to make the infrastructure bill harder to actually get adopted.

The four-part, eight-year plan dedicates $620 billion for transportation -- including a doubling in federal funding for public transit -- and $650 billion for initiatives tied to improving quality of life at home, like clean water and high-speed broadband. There’s $580 billion for strengthening American manufacturing -- some $180 billion of which goes to what’s billed as the biggest non-defense research and development program on record -- and $400 billion to address improved care for the elderly and people with disabilities.
 
Top